Doesn't necessarily have to be top down. It could be cultural, the quarter-by-quarter market economics incentivises "money today" (just look at all the disasters caused by poor maintenance) but cultural norms of long-term thinking could drive prioritisation of "security tomorrow". Also, a sense of personal duty and honor instead of accumulating money being the sole arbiter of social status.

It's not redundancy, it's capitalism.

There is a large number of competing and overlapping suppliers because they're all competing for business and none have gained market dominance.

The US and most of the west is largely in a post-capitalistic market, where competition is no longer necessary because monopoly/duopoly status has been reached and segment leaders can simply use their capital to prevent challengers instead of competing on product/service quality, and margins can be widened and quality can decrease because there's no other option.

To me, it seems the solution is to make it possible again for smaller more agile players to compete against bloated and stagnating established companies. The large legacy companies are preventing innovation to protect their domain instead of innovating to keep up.

It’s one of those ironies in power structures, how a ‘communist’ society can act as turbo capitalist one and visa versa. It’s a mistake to think that just because things are one way at the top they’re the same way all the way down the power structure. Even with heavy corruption there are competing corrupt entities which can lead to a healthy competition of governance as an emergent behavior. Dysfunction at one level efficiencies at another. Corruption is self corrupting so it’s difficult to maintain at all levels.

In my view much of the ‘corruption’ in the west takes the form of very legal financialization, this massively rewards consolidation as the high debt to equity ratios means low interest rates are paramount and combining two entities allows one to act as insurance for the other lowering the risk component of the interest rate allowing the entity to out compete the remaining entities. Once reaching a certain size the company becomes too big to fail and the risk component merges with the US government. Since the US government is very receptive to donations these companies are in effect able to form an oligarchy. Compare this to China where companies are subordinate to the politicians.

I think the West overestimates the deleterious effects of corruption of our competitors and underestimates our own systemic (and legalized) corruption.

> How does China incentivize its executives to spend money on redundancy?

IMHO, China has two parallel hierarchies of status - one in the ruling party, other in private sector. So the ruling party can maintain the capitalist competition, and dictate overall industrial policy, which fuels the innovation.

In the West, the rich people owning capital captured the political class, so there is only one status hierarchy now - of capitalists. This hierarchy ossifies and becomes increasingly resistant to competition - why invest into something new when it will most likely cause your individual wealth to decrease?

I think this manifests as the wealthy class increasingly speculating on the rising price of assets and extracting rents from them, rather investing in productive infrastructure. So the neoliberalism (capitalism) is in a sort of tragedy of commons, where wealthy individuals benefit more from this financialization rather than actual production.

The West avoided this in the past by having strong unions and middle class controlling the policy through democracy, which balanced the accumulation of wealth. If China can in the future avoid this (or other) trap, where the status elite ossifies and prevents investment in the interest of whole society, remains to be seen.

>Net income?

Whose income? The automotive engineers being mass layoffed?